April 4, 2012

I'm independent, moderate, and pragmatic, and I voted for you in 2008 because I thought I saw those qualities in you. I still see those qualities in you, but the you that has those qualities is one of two Obamas, and the other Obama — Radical Lefty Obama — is a person I will not vote for.

I think you alternate between these 2 personas, and I sense that you've done it for so long that it feels normal and comfortable to you, but I want to urge you to pack up Radical Lefty Obama and stow him away with the rest of your Harvard Law School memorabilia. I know you — the Moderate Obama — have impressed some very useful people over the years by parading about as Radical Lefty Obama.

Mr. Obama provided a powerful signal on Tuesday that he intends to make this election about the Republican Party’s failure to confront, what he called, “the defining issue of our time”: restoring a sense of economic security while giving everyone a fair shot, rather than enabling only a shrinking number of people to do exceedingly well. His remarks promise a tough-minded campaign that will call extremism and dishonesty by name.

Notice how, in expressing its love, the NYT portrayed Radical Lefty Obama as Moderate Obama. It's Moderate Obama that American voters find so appealing. You don't need all that left-wing economics and race-and-gender demagoguery. I think what people like about you — you, who are famously, sublimely likeable — is the normal person who seems to be in harmony with everyone. We — many of us — voted for you because you seemed to offer to bring us together, to end the rancor.

Be that Obama.

Note to Mitt Romney: If Obama doesn't want to be that Obama, you can be that guy.

There is only one Obama- you see two because you are taken by the doosh Obama. The one that is so charming when he sells you on that used car that has a few 'issues'. The charming boyfriend Obama, when you think you'd really like a boyfriend. Fool you twice...

Ann, since he's been elected where has moderate Obama been? I see lefty Obama in nearly everything he does, and that is only increasing as the election draws near and people begin to question just what his policies have wrought (since places like NYT and WaPo rarely did when he was enacting them). I think it's the other way around, moderate Obama was the facade placed on left Obama to get elected. And whenever he's elected left Obama comes out (see Senate record). I'd appreciate a few examples of moderate Obama, especially recent ones.

The most liberal member of Congress when he was there. If you read his history, there is no moderate there except in words in speeches, and only when needed to pretend not to be what he was like Eddie Haskel saying "That's a lovely dress you're wearing, Mrs. Cleaver"

Reminds me of my 50 foot rooster story last night. If a group of people want to believe something facts are virtually impervious to group desire. Being truly independent requires being independent from your desired truth and accepting the demonstrated one.

Most of us think that Radical Lefty Obama is the real one and the independent, moderate, and pragmatic Obama is just a cover designed to win votes from middle America.

Look at the facts. When things are good, he plays moderate, but under pressure, the real Obama comes out and that one is a Racist, Leftist, Classist Demogogue.

The fact that he's already in Demogogue mode concerns us greatly, because it portends that if this is the new normal, then after the election, we think he'll go full left rudder when driving the ship of state.

It's very easy to spot the Moderate Obama, but only in hindsight. Take anything he has said that ended up having an expiration date and look at his original statement. That's the one parading as a moderate. Radical Obama is the one that stepped up to make that statement false.

Even if the President were able to hide his inner self through the election, it would last precisely until the last votes were counted. you are asking a man who admitted to his country's adversary that he will use his flexibility following the election to undermine US interests in favor of that adversary. Even if he hid "Radical Obama," what on earth makes you believe it would last?

Ask yourself where you think Obama sees himself most comfortably. One Obama is who he truly is and the other is a tactic to facilitate and advance who he is.

If the moderate Obama is the true Obama -- it made sense for him to embrace lefty Obama as a tactic since he was in Chicago. However, once senator and president, a moderate would also recognize that perhaps righty Obama would be useful as a tactic. Bill Clinton was able to do that on occasion. Righty Obama doesn't exist.

Therefore, lefty Obama is the real one who only trends to the center to gain the votes of people like Ann. People operate over the long-term with their true self. Does Obama's actions over the past three years match his rhetoric of 2008 tells a person all they need to know.

Ready to be fooled again, eh? There's NO evidence that Obama has ever been "moderate"--or even associated with anyone "moderate." All his associations are with radical leftists--in his personal and professional life. This is quite odd--who else do you know who is so exclusionary?

It's also very odd that someone so smart could be so gullible and downright stupid. Are you really so desperate to create an Obama you can love? Why?

It surprised me - a bit, not all that much - that you fell for the 'moderate Obama' in 2008 -- I'd chalk it up to your being in the academic bubble and having normal 'feel good instincts.

It astonishes me that after 3 years of nothing but the radial leftist Obama, you would even entertain the notion that the 'moderate Obama' was anything other than a ruse de guerre to fool the American voters.

If you were to support Obama again, it would be impossible to take you seriously.

The Winnipeg Free Press reported that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Obama the U.S. will have to pay market prices for its Canadian oil after Obama's de facto veto of the Keystone XL pipeline. Canada is preparing to sell its oil to China.

Until now, NAFTA had shielded the U.S. from having to pay global prices for Canadian oil. That's about to change.

Canada has also all but gone public about something trade watchers have known for a long time: that the U.S. has blocked Canada's entry to the eight-way free trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an alliance of the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Peru, Chile, and Singapore. Both Canada and Mexico want to join and would benefit immensely.

If you want to read about how Mexico feels about Fast & Furious, read through to page 2.

Face it Ann, you voted for him because of his skin color. His "ideas" were silly talking points.

Obama is radical because he pointed out Paul Ryan's budget is radical. And, he may have hurt his fee fees by saying so! What exactly is in Paul Ryan's budget plan? Dunno! But he has those sweet baby blues!

Althouse- how would Obama go about trying to address the alleged "defining issue of our time...income equality" in a moderate way? He has nothing and he has no idea how to do that without resorting to class warfare.

"You're kind of implicitly conceding that it is, but you want him to lose and you're arguing to me and people like me about whom we should vote for and what campaign style we should see through."

Campaign advice is most useful for people not running for reelection because even with all of their previous experience, they are somewhat of a blank slate to the electorate. Incumbants have an established past in the office that defines them. Candidates either run on that record or hide from it. Asking Obama to run as Moderate Obama is asking him to hide his record, therefore it is a disingenuious campaign tactic. Why should people tolerate that?

Ann Althouse wrote: I'm giving him *campaign advice.* You're all saying the same thing and it's not responsive to my central point. Is it not good campaign advice?

You're kind of implicitly conceding that it is, but you want him to lose and you're arguing to me and people like me about whom we should vote for and what campaign style we should see through.

Pay some attention to that.

You're giving him campaign advice, but you're also suggesting strongly you would still support him if he portrayed himself as the moderate Obama.

Most of us commenting here don't believe the moderate Obama really exists, other than as an intentional deception, so your advising him to resume that deception, and suggesting you'd support him if he did, is frustrating beyond belief. It suggests cognitive dissonance to me, at least: you still want desperately to believe.

The hold the left has on academia, even relatively libertarian-friendly academics such as you, is breath-taking.

MSM articles like this prove that the DEMS and Obama know he is toast and in big trouble if he wants to be re-elected.

Also, I think this Althouse post proves Althouse has had a stroke or has taken up drugs. Obama was never pragmatic.Jeez, he can't even show practicality when it comes to his use of govt resources and staff for his family trips.

"It astonishes me that after 3 years of nothing but the radial leftist Obama, you would even entertain the notion that the 'moderate Obama' was anything other than a ruse de guerre to fool the American voters."

But Ann's an adult. She's going to vote for who she wants. Lets not go overboard critizing her choice.

Excellent advice. But it assumes that Obama is a sweet family man that loves this country.

The sweet smiling Obama that projects the image that he would not hurt a fly also happens to be the Drone Killer who subverts middleast allies who have a rational relationship with Israel and props up middeleast enemies who are sworn to murder all Jews and then move on To murder all Christians.

For our own good he plans to disarm or nuclear deterrent and cut the military by 2/3rds while outlawing our reality based energy sources that support what's left of an industrial base and a distribution system.

The only positive the Independent thinkers got from electing the loving smile of the Good Obama was ending the racial guilt power hanging over us since MLK was shot.

But he is replacing that with a mythological economic guilt and CO2 as dirty pollution guilt.

As a conservative, he, as my President has told me to "shut up and let him drive", blamed the people I voted for for all of his problems, defined "bi-partisan" and "compromise" as seeing things his way, demonized the 2010 Republican congress which was elected to check his outrageous Progressive agenda.

He appointed ineffectual academics as advisors, czars and Cabinet members, taunted the Supreme Court, injected himself into local/state issues like Skip at Harvard, Trayvon Martin's shooting, Sandra Fluke's false testimony before a Potemkin Congressional committee.

He is utterly incapable of learning from mistakes - especially his own, and never questions his Marxist dogma, etc.

He does not know how to govern, having never done it before, and has acted as President of Democrats since Inauguration Day.

Allow me to give you some election advice: Learn from YOUR mistake, and vote for anyone but this charlatan.

I don't think he can campaign as a moderate again. When he was first running he took up the mantle of a moderate messiah, a post-partisan, post-racial candidate who believed in the American dream. Since he's been elected he has governed very leftward and hasn't even been able to be a moderate when following his own plans (Simpson Bowles or the debt ceiling fiasco where he had a deal with Boehner and he reneged at the last moment). What seems to happen is that as soon as someone questions whether his opinion is the best, he hunkers down and starts demagoguing, and as evidence by his voting record and governing his first impulse is leftward...meaning that if he ran as a moderate Romney could really make hay on him bu just pointing out what Obama has actually done as president, and how he has reacted to compromise.

So, instead, Obama and the NYT and its ilk will make the race about everything that can be a distraction, and a lefty one at that, to rally the base and hope the coalition is strong enough, and Romney milquetoast enough to allow him a second term. He can't run as a moderate this time because there's an actual past now which disproves the facade.

"... I'm independent, moderate, and pragmatic, and I voted for you in 2008..."

Pragmatic isn't the word that comes to mind when someone thinks that a junior Senator with 2 years under his belt is qualified to he President of the US.

That's kind of like taking the branch manager of a national bank and making him CEO.

"... the other Obama —Radical Lefty Obama —is a person I will not vote for..."

And it took nearly 4 years to notice this? Let's chalk up not to discerning with not pragmatic. It's like a lot of Obama voters woke up after a bender and noticed the hot babe they picked up the night before looks like Phyllis Diller.

Not one that has lost unanimously in the House in one version and the Senate in another

Matthew makes an excellent point. Garage makes fun of Ryan's budget proposal while conveniently forgetting that Obama's was voted down unanimously in the House. How often does that happen and just how awful does it have to be in order to accomplish getting zero votes?

Is it good advice to persuade Obama to act like a moderate?Sure.Will it work this time?

We are all saying that of course he will do this. His handlers will force him to do it. It doesn't change the reality that Obama's moderate side is a big lie. Obama is a lefty, he was groomed by lefties and his life's mission is to push his leftwing agenda.

When you look at the stark raving mad extreme right lunatics that populate this comments section, and much of the right half of Congress, doesn't that suggest that it requires a President who is willing to recognize what he is up against, say it clearly, and fight back against it?

How exactly have Obama's attempts to engage in moderate bipartisan cooperation worked out with the Republican extremists in Congress?

Have these Republicans explicitly stated that cooperating with Obama is a bad thing that should be avoided, no matter what the issue is or agreement that could be reached?

"As all of you are doing your reporting, I think it's important to remember that the positions that I am taking now on the budget and a host of other issues -- if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago or even 15 years ago -- would've been considered squarely centrist positions," he said in response to a question about Republicans' criticisms of his spending priorities. "What's changed is the center of the Republican party and that's certainly true with the budget."

So, there you go. So centrist you can't believe it. Because in the past, spending half again more than government revenue was centrist and mainstream. Because the idea that there are no limits on Federal legislation was centrist. Why don't we understand how lucky we are to have such a reasonable, centrist President?

The problem is - there aren't two Obamas. There is only Obama, and the shiny mirrored facade he held up during his last election. The one where you, and so many others, saw yourself, and your own high ideals and aspirations. You imagined that he shared those ideals. He doesn't. He never has. He never will.

He never was that guy in the mirror. YOU are the goodness that you saw, and that goodness, that you and so many others share, is our hope for this nation IF you can - how to put this delicately? - pull your head out of - - no, that's not delicate - ummm.... if you can JUST keep your eyes open long enough to see him for what he is and VOTE TO FIX THIS HORRIBLE MISTAKE.

The fate of the world does depend on it. There have been enough clues, enough open-mike moments, you see it in his stumbling press secretary, who cannot find words to cover up for him, you see it in Supreme Court Justices who see it so clearly they act out of character trying to tell you... so many clues. All there. Please. Please. Please see it.

If nothing else - his empty phrases ought to raise the hair on the back of your neck. Stop filling in the blanks for him.

It's not *just* campaign advice when you say things like "I still see those qualities in you." You're not just recommending what Obama should do to win; you're making a statement concerning your own personal judgment of him-- a statement about what you take him to *be*, not just about how he appears.

If commenters are arguing with you about your judgment of Obama instead of your "campaign advice" to him, that's not off topic and it's not a deflection-- because your (IMO very mistaken) judgment of Obama is stated in this post. So it's fair game.

"I'm independent, moderate, and pragmatic, and I voted for you in 2008 because I thought I saw those qualities in you. I still see those qualities in you, but the you that has those qualities is one of two Obamas, and the other Obama — Radical Lefty Obama — is a person I will not vote for."

There is no "radical lefty Obama," and anyone who sees one is hallucinating.

Obama is a straight-up establishmentarian, a loyal servant of the prevailing order, an eager minion of the elites who (believe they) own this country, (and who, for all practical purposes, do), they who are determined to strip-mine the country and its people of every last cent of wealth.

"Your campaign advice to him is to lie? That's what he's doing when he is being "moderate." He really doesn't need to be advised to do that -- it comes naturally."

Close.

Her campaign advice to Obama is "lie to me again so I can pretend (i.e., lie to myself) you aren't the Radical Lefty Obama we all know you are."

Sad.

Aristotle (and de Tocqueville) argued democracy was doomed once the masses realized they could impoverish the wealthy minority for its own sake rather than act on the common good. In this, he (and de Tocqueville) was right.

Aristotle failed to contemplate the educated acting ignorantly out of emotion, or vanity, or succumbing to pressure of one's clique bound by close-minded group-think.

My best guess is that Althouse will vote for Obama again, no matter what happens between now and November. If the preceding three and half years have failed to make a decisive impression upon her, the next seven months most assuredly will not.

I don't wish to pile on about Obama has never, ever been "independent, moderate, and pragmatic" (oops. Too late.) but you suggest in the comments that this isn't necessarily how you feel, it's just 'campaign' advice.

Do you really think this is the wisest way for him to go? Really? After all he's said and done this past term? He should represent himself as the sublimely likable moderate who's in harmony with everyone?

How about this instead: Mr. Obama, there's no one left to fool so why don't you just double down on your radical statist agenda to rapidly accelerate us further towards European style socialism. That way, voters can have a clear choice.

@Ann "I'm giving him *campaign advice.* You're all saying the same thing and it's not responsive to my central point. Is it not good campaign advice?:

Well, since you ask: no.

Why?

He's no longer believable.

What worked for him before ...the reason you voted for him ...was ignorance of who and what he actually, really, truly is.

When a con's con is revealed, the con is no longer effective.

People no longer believe.

So your campaign advice is, well, rather naive at this point.

I mean, I recall reading about the woman in Oregon several years ago, who had sent $150K to a Nigerian scammer. And who, even after she'd lost almost everything, and been presented with the facts of the scam, continued to believe.

So I guess there are people who can continue to be conned even when the con' has become transparent. And documented. And patiently explained in its details.

I sincerely hope that they're not in the majority this time 'round.

There may have been some excuse for it the first time (few people pay attention to politics: and a con is reliant on that ignorance), but this time?

Hahaha.

So your advice is naive at best.

After all, PT Barnum's famous adage is reliant upon the NEW "sucker" being born every minute.

Even Obama knows that his previous con won't work this time around (well, "won't work with most people" ...there's always the lady in Oregon).

Bad campaign advice, Ann.

That's why he's choosing to run on the classic Microsoft FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) technique.

Can he carry it off? - Doubt it.

But he'll go further with the political (and business!) classic, than by trying to run the con again.

He is not likable. He is a con man who continues to con the gullible and those in need of assurance that they are not racists. But rest assured he is a con man, a bullshit artist who recognizes what many, if not most, recognize: he is over his head; he would not be where he is today but for the color of his skin. And this recognition pisses him off. And he slings more bullshit, move obvious bullshit, as his incompetence sinks in.

"Obama is a straight-up establishmentarian, a loyal servant of the prevailing order, an eager minion of the elites who (believe they) own this country, (and who, for all practical purposes, do), they who are determined to strip-mine the country and its people of every last cent of wealth."

From Cook's perspective, anything short of direct expropriation of property for the masses is short of "radical lefty."

IF Obama does follow your advice I think it will make him look phony. The problem for him is that last time he was a cypher. But this time he has a highly visible record which he will have to explain a record of policies, actions and personnel.

What Obama is trying to do is to get the MSM to declare him the centrist. He is publicly coaching the MSM on the narrative that will get him re-elected.

So no, it isn't about Obama being centrist; you can't be what you're not. It is about getting the media to make him appear centrist. That is the advice he is heeding.

I love this:"If there's a Laffer Curve for Presidential invective—some point at which dishonest political abuse yields diminishing returns—the White House political team must not think their boss has hit it. Even in this hyperpartisan age, President Obama's speech to the Associated Press yesterday was a parody of the form. This was a diatribe that managed to invoke "Social Darwinism" and "a Trojan Horse" in the same paragraph, amid the other high crimes that Mr. Obama says Paul Ryan wants to commit.

The President's depiction of the wonkish and formerly obscure House Budget Chairman as some political monster is itself telling. Mr. Obama is conceding that he can't run on the economic recovery, the stimulus, health care, green energy or any of the other grand liberal ambitions that have dominated his time in office. All of those are unpopular or failures. He was elected on hope and change, but now his only hope is to change the subject to the ogres he claims are the disloyal opposition."

So, you want him to hide his true self, like he did in 2008, so he can dupe millions of people into voting for him again?

It's only good campaign advice if people are stupid or naive enough to be taken in by him again.

Obama's a complete con man. It was completely obvious from the moment his campaign started. I can understand the people who voted for him because they were so Bush-deranged that they couldn't bring themselves to vote Republican. But I'm just astounded that so many otherwise-intelligent people were fooled by him.

"Where is there any evidence from Obama's governance that he is or has ever been anything but a henchman for the establishment?"

Most all of the health care establishment (those is the actual business of providing health care) opposes his ACA, for starters. Their "support" results from fear of being the last ones onboard, and first one's raped by the law.

President Obama, please start acting moderate so that I can vote for you again. I flirted with possibly voting for a Republican, but his detractors are right -- Romney is a dud.

So while I might say some favorable things about him now and then, on that walk over to the polling place, I am almost certain to decide to vote for you again, President Obama. But it would be easier, I would be able to wrap it in a bunch of justifications and excuses, if you would again play and act as if you were a likeable moderate.

Hunger Games continued..."Did you hear about the GOP's red-in-tooth-and-claw plan for Medicare? Grandma and Gramps are going to be drafted for the Hunger Games.

Mr. Obama has been working Mediscare for the last year, but he is also debuting some new material, each layer thicker than the last. Modern Republicans are so radical that they oppose research and care for Alzheimer's, cancer, AIDS, autism and Down Syndrome, even as they want to deny education and food to children and their mothers. They want to pave over Yellowstone and backfill the Grand Canyon. But few tourists could get there anyway, because Republicans plan to shut down air traffic control too.

Because Republicans have criticized the Administration's torrent of costly new rules across the entire economy, therefore they favor returning to a state of regulatory nature, with no rules at all. Because Republicans oppose high-speed rail, therefore they would have opposed industrialization in the 19th century. They do plan to build a wayback machine to the Gilded Age, however, by handing a $150,000 check to every American millionaire, a million-dollar check to every billionaire, and a billion-dollar check to every trillionaire.

"This is not conjecture," Mr. Obama said. "I am not exaggerating. These are facts." Lest you think we exaggerate, read the transcript."

Professor, what ever made you think the moderate Obama wasn't just and act? Not very pragmatic was it.

Imagine what the real lefty Obama you fear will look like in a second term, having to never face the voters again.

Do you really think Breitbart and his crew are so far off in calling out the stealth mission of Obama, Ayers, and the rest? Breitbart was right when he claimed racial and social division were a big part of "Hope and Change". Now it is just being implemented.

Obama is right about one thing. Most people don't pay any attention, and he can sway the low information voter any way he wants. And he has the media, Hollywood, and the University Establishment on board with the plan.

Even though it won't work on 99% of the people here (including, I would suspect, Ann). But, unfortunately, this election won't be decided by the denizens of this blog. It will, instead, be decided by millions of "undecideds" - you know, morons.

The evidence for why this is great advice: it's right in the post. Look at how the NYT, like the good little doggy they are, picked up and ran with what Obama threw them. Never mind that it is a turd - they know that and just don't care - what matters is who threw it. Nothing else. Certainly not the reality of what it is they are, in fact, fetching.

Which is why the only thing wrong with this post is that suggestion that Romney could use the same advice. There is no juicy bone he could throw the media lapdogs that they would run with.

So many above have said this better than I could. But, there never has been a moderate Obama. There just looked like there was one, because of the careful marketing job that he and his handlers did before the 2008 election, aided and abetted by the MSM that ran interference for him during that election.

You should look at what he does, much more than what he says. Think about it and keep this in mind. Since he was elected, the U.S. is still mired in his recession, lengthened and deepened by his misguided policies and mis/over regulation, federal spending has jumped by about 5% of GDP, borrowing is now on track to hit world GDP in a couple of years, the coal fired power industry is being shut down, with the billions that were supposed to buy our future in "green industry" going almost entirely to political cronies. Gasoline should, according to his plan, hit probably $5 a gallon this summer, up from below $2 when he was inaugurated. Our defense is facing massive reduction in size, while our nuclear umbrella is being rapidly dismantled (he wants about 200 warheads, down from the current 2,000) while the Russians and Chinese are building like crazy). Throw in a Department of Racial inJustice, given how it has been run the last 3+ years by the racist Attorney General running it - whose other great claim to fame has been shipping arms to the Mexican cartels.

The difference between then and now though is that Obama now has a record. No matter how desperately you may want to believe in his goodness and moderation, you need to ignore what he and his MSM sycophants say about him, his personality, etc., and look at his record.

The interesting thing about Obama is that he really does say what he is going to do. He told us up front that he intended to drive the cost of gas up and coal plants out of business. He said that he wanted us to essentially eliminate our nuclear arsenal, while reducing the size of our military and military forces and their foreign entanglements. He said that equality and economic justice were more important than economic prosperity. He said we would pull out of Iraq as soon as we could, and we did, regardless of how close we were to being ready.

Obama is a straight-up establishmentarian, a loyal servant of the prevailing order, an eager minion of the elites who (believe they) own this country, (and who, for all practical purposes, do), they who are determined to strip-mine the country and its people of every last cent of wealth.

Obama sought out Joe Lieberman as a mentor when he entered the senate. They can't point to much that makes him a leftist as Prez, so they have to make shit up, or proclaim "I know what he really wants to do!"

All along, the MSM was running interference for him. And, they are doing it again this time. (And, looking sillier and sillier as they do so - note NBC getting caught just now for doctoring that 911 tape in order to portray Hispanic Zimmerman as a white racist, who just forgot his Klan sheet at home). If they were honest, we would be seeing the graphs of unemployment, borrowing, debt, etc., all indicating gross mismanagement of the economy. About gas and energy prices. Stories about our gas and oil reserves that now appear to dwarf those of the Saudis, that the Administration is desperately trying to put off limits to drilling. And, how much of the public lands that they have managed to do so with during his Administration. We would be seeing stories about the Russian and Chinese nuclear programs. And, we would see story after story about how corrupt the Department of Justice has become, starting with Holder's dismissal of the charges against his NBP black brethren, and including how the Administration tried to arm the Mexican cartels with Fast and Furious, etc.

Think about the later for a minute or two, and then compare that to how the MSM handled Watergate. Which was more egregious? A two bit burglary, where a number of members of Nixon's inner circle eventually went to jail? Or, a concerted attempt to build a case for increased gun control through shipping guns from the U.S. to those Mexican cartels, resulting in some 300 deaths so far? Where at least one person has already pled the 5th Amdt., and the DoJ is all but in contempt of Congress over its stonewalling. Where is the public outrage? There is none, with the MSM outlets all but refusing to carry the story.

But, enough comes out that you should be able to see that you really need to be looking more deeply than they want you to. To look at what Obama has done, and not how he sounds. Sure, he looks like a clean black moderate. But, always keep in mind that his father was a Muslem communist economist, that his preacher of 20 years was a raging black liberation racist, and that he was far closer to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and his terrorist wife than they ever let you see - with some evidence now that Ayers' family seems to have financially supported Obama through college. And we still don't know why so many of the relevant public records have been excised.

Ann, my nit to pick with you is what exactly has Moderate Obama accomplished? Most of his tenure is dotted with Radical Obama accomplishments. We may like Moderate Obama, but that doesn't mean he's effective.

My advice for Barry:

Quit scolding everyone who doesn't agree with you, show some real humility, and admit that you need to do a better job of running this country's government if you want to be re-elected.

Quit self-ranking yourself historically and stop publicly responding to stupid questions like that. It's not your place to rank yourself; that's for other people to do much farther down the road. Again, be humble for chrissakes.

Rise above your own partisan fray, and speak optimistically and specifically about how we can get this country back on track. Be persuasive. Don't get bogged down in obtuse reasoning or minutae; be laser-sharp in your messaging and focus on simple, baby-step solutions for the foreseeable future. When receiving actionable feedback, show that you can amend your thinking.

And say what you mean for a change. Don't campaign on a bunch of liberal bromides like closing Guantanamo, and then do the exact opposite. Political expediency is not an attractive quality and it erodes your trustworthiness. Give examples of how you've allowed your assumptions to be challenged in a way that is not self-serving or belittling of your opponents.

Show that you really are considering solutions which could have legitimate bipartisan support. Don't use compromise as a code word for 'my way or the highway'.

If you can't do that, man up and admit that maybe you aren't the right person for the job.

Yes and no, but mainly no. You may be presenting this as campaign advice, but you give the game away in that tepid little bleat at the end - we - many of us - voted for you because you seemed to offer to bring us together, to end the rancor. Be that Obama.

What you're doing is begging him to give you a reason to justify voting for him again. Even ignoring each of his broken promises and outright lies, where is the evidence that he has ever attempted to "end the rancor?" Forget Trayvon Martin; if his calling out the Supremes doesn't show you that he is a petty, vindictive, ill-educated thug, then there's no hope for you.

Obama is radical because he pointed out Paul Ryan's budget is radical.

I'm not surprised that, like the words "honor," "patriotism" and "decency," you have absolutely no idea what the word "radical" means.

And he may have hurt his fee fees by saying so!

Hands up - is garbage drunk, off his meds or finally regressing to the mean?

"... Obama is a straight-up establishmentarian, a loyal servant of the prevailing order, an eager minion of the elites who (believe they) own this country, (and who, for all practical purposes, do), they who are determined to strip-mine the country and its people of every last cent of wealth."Ive started playing The International on YouTube when I read one of Cook's posts just to get the full effect.

I'm giving him *campaign advice.* You're all saying the same thing and it's not responsive to my central point. Is it not good campaign advice?

You're kind of implicitly conceding that it is, but you want him to lose and you're arguing to me and people like me about whom we should vote for and what campaign style we should see through.

I apologize for getting side tracked like so many others here.

But, you admit to getting sucked into the hype that was Obama's campaign, and are suggesting that if they just tried the same thing again, that you would go along with it. That what is important to you is not what Obama does, has done, or will do, but rather, how he sounds.

And, that leads a lot of us to worry that if he can fool you again, you being a very bright, educated, and well informed woman, by just mouthing the right, moderate words, that we, as a country, are in big trouble.

Hey, I got a great idea! How about portraying yourself as more moderate (or conservative) than you really are?

Yeah, great idea. So great that it is idea number one in the playbook of most libs and all tyrants and despots. That a politician lie to voters in order to sucker them into voting for you is hardly something new.

Both leading candidates for their respective party's nominations have been running this play all along.

A president who would excoriate the Supreme Court in the presence of the Justices (as he later would to Paul Ryan), then claim that overturning a bill is "unprecedented", has a different idea of moderation than most of us. Of course, most of us haven't spent four decades being told how awesome and fragrant our bowel movements are.

His petulance suggests what the sequel to The Emperor's New Clothes would read like. "What do mean I'm naked? I'm not naked. Even the New York Times says I'm not naked."

I want to urge you to pack up Radical Lefty Obama and stow him away with the rest of your Harvard Law School memorabilia. I know you — the Moderate Obama — have impressed some very useful people over the years by parading about as Radical Lefty Obama.

So which is the REAL Obama?

The one YOU want to see evidently. This is what Obama is all about. Present the view that others want to see and hide the real Obama. Who ever and what ever that is.

So your advice to Obama is to hide what may or may not be his real character and hide his real agenda to be the chameleon that you want to see. Put on a pretty face for the rubes??

He is not likable. He is a con man who continues to con the gullible and those in need of assurance that they are not racists.

I never understood this - why anyone thought that he was likable. To me, he has always come across as an arrogant prick. And, it has only gotten worse since he came into office. Just listen to his speeches. I, I, I, unless it is bad, then it is "the Republicans". His is going to do this, do that, has done this, had done that. All by himself, and, maybe just a little bit, his millions of serfs working for him and his government, and hundreds of millions of citizens paying for all of it. The most ego centric President of our life times.

When he, his wife, or his kids, go off on their umpteenth expensive and exclusive vacation of the year (already) with that huge security detail, we are not allowed to ask, why? While are the American people being required to pay for him living so large in the midst of this deep recession.

And, anyone who can shut down air traffic to three international airports so that he and his wife can go see a show in NYC, or shut down traffic in LA during rush hour, just so that he can visit with some of his bigger financial backers, has to be arrogant.

I expect that sort of arrogance from Donald Trump. But, he isn't elected, and really cannot do even 10% here that the the President and his family have done, and continue to do, in the arrogance category. Personally, I don't find that level of personal arrogance the least bit appealing.

Asking Obama to be that Obama is like asking Gregory Peck to be Atticus Finch. It’s just a role.

Bill Clinton could “be” someone else because the only core conviction Bill Clinton really had was that Bill Clinton ought to run things. Obama, to his credit and his detriment, actually believes in some things. Four years on, we have a much better notion of what those things are, which is why he cannot be the 2008 candidate any more.

garage mahal said...Obama is radical because he pointed out Paul Ryan's budget is radical. And, he may have hurt his fee fees by saying so! What exactly is in Paul Ryan's budget plan? Dunno! But he has those sweet baby blues!

4/4/12 9:08 AM

After adjusting for inflation and population growth Ryan's plan still spends more than Clinton's last budget. Don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative.

Neither you nor Obama has the foggiest clue what the Ryan budget plan actually is.

Neither does Ryan apparently. Or if he does, he's not telling us what it is. Ryan's "budget" is not a budget at all. All it does is target spending levels with no mention of what will actually be cut (although he does apparently intend to increase defense spending even if the Pentagon doesn't ask for it).

If you have the document that tells us the line items in Ryan's budget, please provide us with it.

If Althouse is, in fact, flirting with voting for Obama again, why? Why isn't she just overwhelmed with excitement and passion and natural automatic support for the Republican nominee, so as to overcome her residual liberalism and impulse to always vote Democrat?

Why can't Gov. Most Electable, who saved the Olympics, get her over that hump by his innate awesomeness?

Why should possibly voting for Obama again even be an issue, for her or for anyone?

What you're doing is begging him to give you a reason to justify voting for him again. Even ignoring each of his broken promises and outright lies, where is the evidence that he has ever attempted to "end the rancor?" ...

Actually, with Obama, there is what he says to win votes, like Ann's, and there is what he says that he means to do. And, he has been remarkably consistent with the later. He said that he was going to kill the coal industry, and is succeeding. That sort of thing. It is just the window dressing in the center, where he has not kept his word.

My theory, as unfortunate as it may be, is that when he says something that sounds radical (like destroying our fossil fuel industry), he means it, but if he says something that the American people want to hear, like being the post-racial, moderate, bi-partisan, modern President, it is almost assuredly disingenuous rhetoric designed to lull the masses into passivity.

You know, I don't think I've ever seen a single indication that Obama was independent, moderate, or pragmatic.

He has always appeared beholden to entrenched interests, respectful to the most radical elements of the left, and dead set to enact his chosen policies regardless of their effect on the real world. He also has always seemed, vain, thin skinned, and remarkably impressed with himself, while having no record of accomplishment to show for it.

I see no indication that there is any kind of conflict in his mind, no war between the inner pragmatist and the fierce radical. He is what he is, happy in his own skin; more's the pity for us.

Bill Ayers wasn't somebody with whom I presented seminars at the University of Chicago! No, he was "just some guy in the neighborhood."

Worse - there is evidence now that Ayers' parents appear to have helped Obama financially through college and law school. This coming from their old USPS mail carrier, who claims to have talked to Mrs. Ayers on multiple occasions about the student whose education they were helping finance, and then meeting that studen one day at their house, and believing that person to have been Obama.

So it isn't just campaign advice. You're still hooked on the lie. Now is the time to face it.

As Fen says, this is classic Battered Woman Syndrome.

Ann Althouse said...

I'm giving him *campaign advice.* You're all saying the same thing and it's not responsive to my central point. Is it not good campaign advice?

It's not the Chicago Way and you're dealing with the vainest man on the planet. One who's never been told, "No", or that he was wrong.

The people are defying him and Congress is defying him. He's never had this before and he's getting angry because he doesn't like being frustrated.

It might be good advice, but I don't think he's going to follow it. Besides, the Democrats have been demagoguing their opponents for 80 years and it's usually worked, so it's unlikely they'll stop now.

You're kind of implicitly conceding that it is, but you want him to lose and you're arguing to me and people like me about whom we should vote for and what campaign style we should see through.

Don't know about anybody else, but I think this is the real him, like it or not.

Andy R. said...

When you look at the stark raving mad extreme right lunatics that populate this comments section, and much of the right half of Congress, doesn't that suggest that it requires a President who is willing to recognize what he is up against, say it clearly, and fight back against it?

How exactly have Obama's attempts to engage in moderate bipartisan cooperation worked out with the Republican extremists in Congress?

How does, "I won", translate to moderate bipartisan cooperation?

Somebody tell Hatman to get his head out of his froth and remember GodZero rejected all Republican attempts at input on ZeroCare.

He wanted their votes so it would look bipartisan, but none of their ideas.

"You're giving him campaign advice, but you're also suggesting strongly you would still support him if he portrayed himself as the moderate Obama."

Oh, for crying out loud. If you insist on making up other things that you feel like I would have said if I hadn't written what I actually did write and responding to that instead... I'm not going to read your comment.

This is a very predictable comments thread, made boring by the failure to read what it says and doesn't say.

Was it the radical or moderate Obama who has increase our spending to 25% of GDP from 20% GDP? Moderate or radical Obama who gave us Obamacare? I think it is only liberals who still like Obama. I think liberals are poor judges of character.

RC, Freder and Garage believe that an attempt to nationalize the health care industry is a moderate establishment position. Only those slightly to the right of Leonid Brezhnev would believe such a thing

Everyone should read THIS BOOK. It was written in 1997. Before 911. Before the Patriot Act. It has been republished and is timely.

It is as if the writer peered into the future and is writing about the sorry state of the country today.

Read this and think about Obama, the fake Obama or the 'real' Obama, his handlers, the games that are being played by the professional slimeballs we call politicians.... and the massive deceptions that are being pulled on the public.

The proposed changes will significantly reduce the length of time U.S. citizens are separated from their loved ones while required to remain outside the United States during the current visa processing system.

Looks like he is supporting families. Isn't family values a principle of the Right?

The proposed changes will significantly reduce the length of time U.S. citizens are separated from their loved ones while required to remain outside the United States during the current visa processing system.

Looks like he is supporting families. Isn't family values a principle of the Right?

Why this post today, and not a post about how thrilling and inspiring it was to have a chance yesterday to vote for the man who is going to save us all from the horrors of Obama and make America great again?

We're talking about you because your post is boring. Of course it's good advice. He's succeeded all his life by running his con, and that's the only option now. What is he going to do, start telling the truth now? LOL. Run on his record? LOL.

The professor is now sulking and her commentariat cannot understand her brillance. get over yourself Professor--you may be a good con law professor, but you arent nearly as brilliant as you think you are. You continue to be the battered wife.

The initial premise bores the hell out of us because, as I mentioned earlier, the Obama of 2008 doesn't exist in 2012 and a campaign strategy to try to re-create that, while probably the best idea he has, is that is not based on how he governed. Therefore, most of us here refuse to accept the question. It's not our fault when the professor asks a bad test question.

It is a Catch-22, no? No other political party will be "viable" until more people still voting for 'em, but most people won't vote for 'em until they are viable. However, voting for a 3rd/4th party has more long-term effects (especially in regards to ballot access) than voting for one of the TwoMajorParties does.

Like I said before, very little will change with the Dems or Repubs until their leadership sees that they are losing too many votes to an alternative party. If history is any indication one (both?) of the two major parties will co-opt the issue(s) that are driving people to seek answers elsewhere, and try to bring 'em back into their fold.

Granted, it is a slower process than most people can tolerate...but it is a lot quicker than simply voting for the "same ol' same ol'" and hoping that something might change.

Has there been a President who was re-elected on essentially the same platform/strategy as his initial successful campaign?

It seems to me that Obama won (initially typo'ed as 'one') first by running as a moderate, and it won't work this time because people have seen beyond the moderate's veil he once cloaked himself in. So as campaign strategy, I don't think it's viable. He can't run against Bush, can't do the Hope/Change thing. An incumbent eventually has to run on his record. If he can get re-elected without running on his past accomplishments as a sitting President (or in his case, by running away from them), then he's really quite Magical.

"And again, the point of this post is: the best way for Obama to win."

Yes, we get it.

But the thing you're missing is, Obama already knows "how to win."

40% of the electorate (the Garage Mahals of the world) are totally, completely, irrevocably in the bag for Obama, no matter what happens, or what he does. Seriously.

The remaining 10%=1 he needs to win (state-by-state, per the electoral college) he'll get by demagoguing the hell out of Romney and the Republicans. Many of the targeted 10%+1 will buy it - most of those who were dimwitted enough to vote for Obama the first time around - so the sell isn't that hard for him.

Your "memo" to Obama is unnecessary, that is to say, superfluous, or redundant, if you prefer.

He knows who his voters are, where they live, and what it takes to get them to turn out for him.

He may be the most inexperienced man ever nominated by any major political party for president in the entire history of the US, but he knows how to campaign, and you aren't telling him anything he doesn't already know: "lie to voters like me, I may vote for you once more.